It’s not often that epistemology, empiricism and the use and descriptions of words, and how they are used, creeps into my pieces. But today it did. A little.

I was reading this piece in the Guardian while sipping my morning tea:

The headline for the article reads:

As heat records break, the climate movement has the right answers – but the words are all wrong

Do read it, it’s worth the time. The piece goes on to talk about how the fossil fuel industry has spent lots of money countering scientific arguments about climate change, so it could continue “business as usual”…even though it knew about the dangers posed by greenhouse gasses many years ago. And that the climate movement, while being “in the right”, has failed to convince many people of its cause because it was using the wrong words. Ooops.

Result? We are heading towards a real, genuine crisis, but the general public are still not mobilised due to…well, read the article – it says it better than I can.

It made me think (heavy stuff over a morning cup of tea, but hey, it’s a Saturday): do we at Reef Check Malaysia really – I mean, really – communicate with people? Do our messages truly reach people, and – much more important – cause them to act?

So here’s the problem. The plan to build an airport on Tioman Island has surfaced again. This thing has been going on since I moved to Malaysia in 1998 (yup, last century!!), so it is a long-running saga. It has been on again, off again for over 25 years. At one point, it was cancelled; then it reappeared again…we honestly thought it had gone away for good last year, but…like that old bad penny, it just keeps coming back.

And, of course, we are against the idea, as we were several times in the past when it raised its ugly head.

Pause for background – Tioman is the largest island off the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia. It’s about 50km from the coast, measures 20km north to south and anything from 5-12km east to west. It has a local population of 4,700 living in 7 villages, and attracts over 250,000 tourists per year. It has intact rainforest, endemic and endangered species, and some of the healthiest coral reefs in Malaysia.

It’s a biodiversity gem.

It’s mountainous – the highest point is 1,000m, and what little flat land there is has already been mainly occupied by the villages.

So why are we against the airport?

Are we one of those anti-development NGOs, always crying foul when development proposals come along?

No.

I think our track record shows that we don’t complain willy-nilly about new resorts, for example. Have we lobbied for careful development?? Of course, we have. No point trashing the very nature that you are trying to attract people to when you are building the darn thing.

But anti-development? No.

So, we must be anti-tourism, then?

Again, no.

We haven’t complained too much about tourism growth in some areas. Have we lobbied for sustainable tourism development? Of course, we have.

We train local guides to be Eco-Friendly Snorkelling Guides (EFSG)

In my view, “sustainable tourism” is just another way of saying “sensible tourism” – I’ve long advocated for a tourism industry that is more sensitive to the needs of both local communities and ecosystems.

Who is tourism for – tourists or the local communities that could benefit from their presence?

Take Mantanani Island as an example. A small remote island off the West coast of Sabah, it is home to a conservative, traditional fishing community of about 1,000 people. Tourism is relatively new on the island.

When we started working there in about 2012, there were only 50-day trippers visiting. By the end of 2019, pre-covid, that had increased to as many as 3,000 per day. Does anyone really think that increasing the number of day trippers to Mananani to 3,000 per day is sustainable?

Ok, so what about communities? Obviously, we don’t think much about them either, if we keep speaking up against new tourism infrastructure that brings more people. More people = good for business, right?

Let me tell you one of the dark secrets of tourism development – the fallacy that “more tourism means more jobs for local communities”. Supporters of tourism – government Ministries, developers, resort operators, etc., like to talk about the economic benefits that tourism brings – the number of jobs it will create is a common claim.

But…really?

On Mantanani Island, tour operators used to bring most of their staff with them on their day trips. Jobs for the locals were just sweeping up the leaves. Better than nothing, you say?

I suppose…but how about helping them to develop their own tourism market – community-based tourism, for example (which we helped develop on Mantanani)? Brings in money direct to the community – and a better experience for the tourist, too, who isn’t surrounded by huge groups of people.

Or Tioman Island. One of my colleagues, who is based on the island assures me that everyone on the island that wants a job has one. And during busy periods, all the resorts are full; all the restaurants are full, all the boats are full...so how is bringing more tourists going to make things better? In fact, all it is going to do is put even more stress on a system that is already stressed – infrastructure, people, ecosystems, etc.

Any jobs created will be for people from outside the island.

So yes, jobs will be created. But let’s stop pretending that tourism is creating jobs just for locals. Not in a relatively mature market like Tioman.

Is anyone convinced yet? That the airport should not go ahead? To save biodiversity? Because tourism doesn’t help local communities? Because the islands are full already?

Or are these arguments too complex?

Back to the article.

It talks about the success of simple slogans – mainly three or four words: “Get Brexit Done”; “Make America Great Again”. There are others. And they work – just look at what happened in those two countries…although one might question whether what was promised was really delivered.

The article talks about the “enlightenment fallacy”: the belief that the facts will persuade all by themselves. They don’t need to be repeated or simplified; their sheer truth will prevail.

Maybe that’s where we are going wrong. Maybe we should forget the nuances, stop writing articles trying to explain ourselves, and just run campaigns with simple messages that garner support – never mind the facts.

So here goes – pick your favourite, and let us know which speaks to you the most:

Stop Tioman Airport
Don’t Destroy Tioman
Save Nature – No Airport
People Not Profit

The proposed new Tioman Airport will cause a huge loss of biodiversity. (Picture from the EIA)

I could go on. You get the point.

Yes, I’m angry.

At a time when the international community is (finally!!) starting to realise how important biodiversity is, we are considering a project that will trash a significant biodiversity resource – an asset, if you will.

Regardless of which slogan would move you to action, one of them should. Because the simple fact is that this new airport will significantly harm Tioman and its communities and its biodiversity, over time.

So, help us out.

Sign the petition to stop the airport. Or, make a comment on the EIA.

Nature needs your support.